State v. Oxford
| Decision Date | 07 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | A161408 |
| Citation | 474 P.3d 465,307 Or.App. 184 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nathan OXFORD, aka Nathan Daniel Oxford, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, for petition.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Defendant, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree sodomy, five counts of first-degree sexual abuse, and five counts of second-degree sodomy, moves for relief from default and seeks reconsideration of our decision in State v. Oxford , 302 Or. App. 407, 461 P.3d 249 (2020). As explained below, we grant relief from default, grant reconsideration, withdraw our former opinion and disposition, and reverse and remand defendant's convictions in light of Ramos v. Louisiana , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 206 L. Ed. 2d. 583 (2020).
Our prior opinion, which was issued prior to the Ramos decision, addressed and rejected defendant's argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial and rejected his other arguments, including an argument that the nonunanimous jury verdicts were unconstitutional, without discussion. Oxford , 302 Or. App. at 408, 461 P.3d 249. On reconsideration, defendant asserts, and the state concedes, that all of his convictions were based on nonunanimous jury verdicts and violate the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the rationale of Ramos . Defendant further asserts that acceptance of the nonunanimous verdicts constituted plain error. In State v. Ulery , 366 Or. 500, 501, 464 P.3d 1123 (2020), the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a trial court's acceptance of a nonunanimous verdict constituted plain error and exercised its discretion to correct that error in light of the gravity of the error and because failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not weigh heavily against correction as the trial court would not have been able to correct the error under controlling law. For the reasons set forth in Ulery , we exercise our discretion to correct the error in this case.
In addition to the petition for reconsideration, the parties have filed a joint motion for summary disposition of this case by unpublished order pursuant to ORAP 10.35. We conclude that disposition by way of ORAP 10.35 is not appropriate in this case, given that our disposition requires the withdrawal of a prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial